Plain Talk

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XI Pg.8

January 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Years ago, filling my fountain pen from an ink bottle, I saw the need for a small rag with which to clean excess ink from the point before replacing the cap. A small scrap of beige cloth from Vivian's sewing basket was used, and placed in my desk drawer for future use. Obviously the ink left an ugly smear on the cloth, but it was tucked away, out of sight.

A few days later a desk pen was refilled, using brown ink; so now brown and blue stains were on the rag. As the years passed that scrap grew heavier with stains: red, blue, black, brown and green. A dash of India ink marked the time I tried to draw a logo for an Arizona paper; and streaks of white became reminders of special cards we sent out for a baby shower.

The cloth became such a "mess" my friends urged me to get a new one, but by now that multi-hued scrap had a nostalgic significance to me. Its blotches, blobs and blurs began to blend into what a jaundiced eye might call a beautiful pattern — or some impressionist use as an oracle. That rag goes with me now as an honored piece of equipment. It rides in my brief case or occupies a place on my desktop. It is an intriguing conversation piece — "What in the blue-eyed world is that?" — even though my explanation causes some to become wary of me, and back off a bit. We must be philosophical about these things.

For that rotting rag may represent what happens in many lives, with far more serious consequences. We mar our soul with sin — an ugly blot that is so objectionable, even to us; we want to hide it from view. But out of sight it seems not so bad. And soon, with a little more boldness, we add another smear. As the sins multiply they alter our view of such matters. We tend to forget the awfulness of any one of the stains, and soon each loses its identity in a pattern of conduct. We may concede it is a "mess" but still excuse it all by saying, "That's just the way I am."

Finally, conscience seared, we try to make something beautiful of it and boldly display it. What a shame. We must learn that a pattern of sin is made of individual spots, each one in need of cleansing. And each must be washed in the blood of the Lamb.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.1

February 1983

Votes, Profit, Or God?

Robert F. Turner

Government wins people by compromise, because the principle of democracy is that the people rule themselves. In the most simplistic sense, it is the job of our politicians to make the laws on which most people agree. We often criticize, "They are just after votes" — but what else? If they do not please the majority, they are voted out of office. When the majority of the people want what is needed, and truly good for them, then they will insist they get it. Our big problem is either selfish or ignorant people, or a combination of the two; plus a political "lag" between recognized need, and implementation.

Now business wins people by making them think they are getting their money's worth. Business operates for a profit, so can never give an even exchange; but must win people by appeal to convenience, pride, aesthetics and the like — satisfying fleshly desires for a price. The complexity of society, and man's needs, make business profit a necessity; but exorbitant profits are reaped when the customer is made to feel he is somehow beating the system. Our greed, and desire to live beyond our means, prompt legitimate business to enter the con game. If we can be persuaded we are beating them, it is easy for them to beat us.

But Christianity (genuine Christianity) operates differently. Authority is absolute, both as Creator (Imperial authority) and Source of moral truth (Veracious authority). We cannot make God richer, nor increase His Glory (Acts 17:24-31). He does not need us, but we need Him; and are won to Him through His confirmed truth. TRUTH makes us free (Jn. 8:32) even as our very thoughts are made captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

Compromise in Christianity only weakens the divine structure, making our position less "Christian." Modern efforts to win converts" with flesh-pleasing buildings, banquets, fun and frolic are cheap and shoddy imitations of the legitimate appeal. We want a gold mansion, silver lined, and are depraved enough to sing of it. Business and politics have become so much a part of the "Christianity" displayed to the world, it is little wonder many cannot see the real thing.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.2

February 1983

Having The Same Father

Robert F. Turner

We applaud genuine efforts on the part of any who strive to heal divisions and bring about unity in Christ. But unity in Christ is a goal to be achieved — not assumed. One fallacy that has been characteristic of "unity movements" goes like this. We are children of the same Father, therefore "brothers" whether we recognize it or not. Let us examine this.

Spiritual "children" of God is a metaphorical expression, a figure of speech drawn from natural occurrence. God's word is the seed (1 Pet. 1:23), received in honest and good hearts (Lu. 8:15, Jas. 1:18), and producing God-like lives (Gal. 5:22-f., 1 Jn. 3: 9-10). Such people "conform to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29); are partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1: 3-4). "Children of God" is not a name for "club members"; it defines people in a qualitative sense — applies only to a certain kind of people.

God knows His own without fail (2 Tim. 2:19), and certainly my judgment will not determine their eternal destiny. But that same verse says, "and Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness" I have no reason to consider one a child of God who does not act as my understanding of God's word tells me such a person will act. (See article on "judging," page 8.) Granting it is possible for me to have faulty understanding doesn't change this principle. I still must act in keeping with my knowledge and conscience (Rom. 14).

I understand God's word to teach God's children desire His word, hunger for truth, and sanctify in their hearts Christ as Lord. They are not self-willed nor "party" oriented. We are fully aware that all have room for improvement along these lines but these traits reveal an attitude that must be found in all who can rightly claim God as their Father (1 Jn. 1:6-7, Jn. 8:47). This attitude, alone, does not constitute one a child of God. An honest and good heart exists before the seed is received and produces Lu. 8:15); hence a good attitude is not reason enough to consider someone as part of the heavenly family. It IS a very good reason for joint study and examination of differences in the light of the word of God.

Children of the same Father, God, are more concerned about pleasing God than in upholding their party flags. They welcome constructive criticism, making an honest effort to "prove all things; hold fast (to) good." And — they practice these traits which they expect of others. They know that neither assumption nor wearing a "Church of Christ" label makes a child of God.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.3

February 1983

Attitudes And Appetites

Dan S. Shipley

When men complain that their wives do not cook as their mothers once did, the fault may not lie so much in the cooking as in the appetite. What they forget is that mother's cooking was served to active, healthy, hardworking, hard playing, and growing boys. Now, as grown men, they sit at a different table with equally good food, but with appetites that have become dulled through inactivity, junk food, physical infirmities, and other such things. The problem is in the man, not in the menu. And it can be something like that in the spiritual realm as well.

When Christians no longer have an appetite for the "sincere milk of the word"; for true-to-the-Bible teaching and preaching, they, too, may be inclined to fault those who serve up such a menu. If the preaching of bygone years "tasted" better, it may be because it was received into the more tender and receptive hearts of active, healthy, and growing Christians. Here again, the problem is likely in the man, not the menu. And that points up an important correlation between attitude and appetite in spiritual things.

In the first place, everything depends on whether one sincerely wants to be righteous (right with God). Nothing more strongly affects how one thinks and acts than this. Hungering and thirsting after righteousness is one of the most vital signs of spiritual health. It is the willingness to do God's will in all things (Jn. 7:17). But, man has volition and that means his will can be changed — and when it does, the appetite changes too. When, therefore, pleasing God and doing right ceases to be important to a man, he will have little taste for that instruction "which is in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Or, to look at it from the other way, when one's appetite for spiritual food is lessened, so is his will to be righteous — and to practice righteousness. And, here is precisely the problem with so many of God's people today. But why?

What is it that robs men of such attitudes and appetites that promote righteousness? Is it Prejudice? Ignorance? Distractions? Indifference? Discouragement? Any or all of these may be contributing factors, but the real culprit is sin. When it overtakes the Christian, it is generally not by surprise, but by a slow and subtly gradual process. Sin changes. It alters the lifestyle, perverts values, impairs judgement and blinds to reality. It even modifies one's view of truth and right. Involvement in sin can eventually cause one to alter his standard of right and wrong. His own moral state easily becomes the measure of his moral convictions. It is sin that makes shipwreck of the faith. And we must not be deceived into thinking it is just the ugly and socially repugnant sins that so affect us. The willful practice of ANY sin produces like and detrimental effects. All sin erodes spiritual character; all of it alters right disposition and desire regarding truth.

When appetite and interest for spiritual things seems to wane, don't be too hasty to blame the cook or the menu. The problem may be within. Sin may be altering the perspective. Will we see it?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.4

February 1983

The Ministry

Robert F. Turner

The ministry is composed of ministers who minister. Of course we all know this because some brethren have taught for years that...

The ministry is a profession by which one earns a living by being supported to preach "full time" by a local church. And, woe be unto the one who quits "full time preaching" for he has "quit the ministry."

Ministers are men (women are not allowed who are "full time, located preachers" who do a greater work and exert a greater influence than the rest of their brethren.

To minister is to do the work of a "full time, located preacher" and can include just about anything that the brethren want him to do.

No...I'm not trying to lessen the importance of and need for men to devote themselves to preaching the gospel. Nor am I opposed to "full time, located preachers." But, the concept of "the ministry" described above, and held to by many brethren, is a bit different from that which is seen in the scriptures. Let's look at the context of Eph. 4:11-12 in order to bring the first century concept of "the ministry" into sharper focus.

Vss. 8-11 describe certain "gifts" that had been given to men: those who were apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors who were teachers. The purpose or function of these men with spiritual gifts is described in vs. 12 (note the change of prepositions in the ASV): "for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ..." What was the work of these men? It was for the perfecting (preparing, making ready) of the saints unto something. "Unto" what? "Unto the work of ministering (service) and "unto" the building up (edifying) of the body of Christ. Who were the ministers? The saints. Who were to do the edifying? The saints.

What does this text suggest about the proper concept of "the ministry"? The ministry is a way of life (see "walk" in 4:1,17;5:2,8,15) entered at baptism (4:5) and left only when we die or apostatize.

The ministers are the saints — all of them — men and women. Each has a different role, but all are of equal value to the whole body (1 Cor. 12:12-31). A minister who preaches "full time" is not "the" minister, and is of no greater importance and influence than a minister who is a "worker at home" (Tit. 2:5) or slave (Phile. 8-20; see also Rom. 16:1-15). To cure a Muhammad Ali complex ("I'm the greatest") read Mk. 10:42-45.

To minister is to make our contribution to the "servicing" and edifying of our brethren (1 Thes. 5:11).

The greatest work is done, and the best influence exerted, by saints who view themselves as ministers with a great work of ministering to be done. This concept of "the ministry" needs to be restored. Will you help?

David Smitherman

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.5

February 1983

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

The Husband As God Would Have Him

Intro.

1. The best marriages are made between those who recognize and submit to God's will 2. The husband is to dwell with his wife according to knowledge (1 Pet. 3:7) a. This is knowledge of what is right; God's will b. Custom, tradition, and personal preference subordinated to this 3. Every man needs to have knowledge of what God wants him to be in this relationship--then, he needs reminding of it. That he ...

I. IS ONE WHO LEAVES FATHER AND MOTHER (Matt. 19:5,6) A. Leaves that relationship in favor of another (has many implications) B. Leaves their "headship" to become head of own family C. Leaves their financial support to provide for his own household

II. IS ONE WHO CLEAVES TO HIS WIFE A. Lit., cemented, glued, joined by God (sticks with his wife in all)

III. IS ONE WHO IS THE HEAD OF HIS WIFE (Eph. 5:23)

A. Headship is leadership and such is needed in every family

B. Headship exercised in love. humility, considerateness (not as dictator)

IV. IS ONE WHO GIVES HONOR TO HIS WIFE (1 Pet. 3:7)

A. Suggests respect, esteem & treatment expressive of such honor 1. Many wives are profaned; treated as common, taken for granted

B. Such honor to be expressed in word & deed (elaborate)

V. Is One Who Provides For The Needs Of His Wife

A. For her physical needs (1 Tim. 5:8)

B. For her sexual needs (1 Cor. 7:1-4)

C. For her spiritual needs (as joint-heir of grace of life, 1 Pet. 3:7)

1. Nothing better complements the efforts of a wife trying to serve the Lord than a faithful husband doing the same...

VI. IS ONE WHO TRULY LOVES HIS WIFE (Eph. 5:25-33) A. Such love is the summation of all the husband should be and do

B. A sacrificial love: "as Christ loved the church"

C. A preeminent love: "as their own bodies"

D. A truly caring love: "even as himself"

Conclusion

1. This is the kind of husband God wants every man to be and the kind every God-fearing man should strive to be 2. What wife would not be blessed with such a husband?

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.6

February 1983

Oh Yes, You Will!

Robert F. Turner

A cynical sage muses, "Nothing is sure but death and taxes." We all nod and smile wisely, but is that true?

Well, even certain death seems distant and unreal — at least for me. Not even a host of funerals have changed it. It is other folk who die. I just cannot visualize myself as guest of honor instead of guest speaker at a funeral. Yet. "...it is appointed unto men once to die —" (Heb. 9:27). Only two men in all history have been excepted — Enoch and Elijah. I will join ranks with the dying. Oh yes, I will!

"There is nothing after death. At death, everything will be finished. I will never return from the grave." Oh yes, you will! "The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (Jno. 5:28). The empty tomb of Jesus guarantees his power and promise. You may not believe it nor understand it. You may wish it were not so. Resurrection offers no consolation to the wicked but alas, you will return — yes, you will! Resurrection is as sure as dying!

"You will not convince me. I will never believe that stuff about God and the Bible." Oh yes, you will! No atheist will stand at the last day. All will be confirmed believers. You have taunted and ridiculed asking for a tangible demonstration of God. You will get it. On that day you will behold the majesty of His presence and hear His voice. Oh yes, you will believe then, sadly, if He says depart! "I will never believe a man will be lost just because he does not believe in Jesus and do exactly as the Bible says." Oh yes, you will! You should already know it. Jesus plainly said, "If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins" and "whither I go ye cannot come" (Jn. 8:21-). He also said, "Not everyone but he that doeth the will of my Father" will enter the kingdom (Mt. 7:21). You will believe it at the judgment. Oh yes, you will! It will be too late then.

"Listen: Nobody tells me what to do. I will bow to none." Oh yes, you will: God seeks by persuasion and by incentive to get you willingly to submit to him (Phil. 2:13). You can rebel and defy him today, but you will eventually submit. Every knee will bow and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord (Phil. 2:9-). That includes you! When he calls you to judgment, you will come. When he says, "Depart into everlasting fire," you will surely obey. Oh yes, you will!

"Nobody will ever know." You are wrong. "...be sure your sin will find you out" (Num. 32:23). "...all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do" (Heb. 4: 13). Every word, every deed, even the most private thought must be accounted for. Oh yes, you will face them!

God does not forget the righteous nor their labor of love (Heb. 6:10). The "exceeding great and precious promises" will be kept (2 Pet. 1:4). When he comes again we will receive our crown (2 Tim. 4:8). Oh yes we will!

JOE FITCH, San Antonio, TX

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.7

February 1983

?You Know What ?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Under the heading, "The Meaning of 'By Faith"' the editor of a current journal writes: "'Eternal life' is declared to be ours, by faith; ' justification' is reckoned to us, by faith; 'forgiveness' is counted as ours, by faith; 'righteousness' is imputed to us, by faith. Should any one of these promises be fulfilled in the NOW, in a real sense, then ALL of them would now be a reality instead of "by faith." Reality would swallow up faith." Please comment. Ala.

Reply:

The writer has confused the object of our faith with the promises conditioned upon faith in that object. Christ is the object of saving faith; we believe in Him — trust Him fully. This trust manifests itself in our submission to His will — the obedience of faith. On this condition, we are promised forgiveness, justification, righteousness, eternal life.

Forgiveness is promised at the point of scriptural baptism (Acts. 2: 38). When one's faith in Christ leads him to fulfill the requirements of such a baptism he has the promise of God that his sins are forgiven. They are NOW forgiven, as opposed to "in promise only" as is seen in Hebrews where the completed process is contrasted with the imperfection of O.T. "remission" which left the conscience burdened (10:1-4, 11-18). Believing my sins are forgiven no more negates the reality of that forgiveness than believing in Christ negates His reality. Forgiveness takes place in the mind of God, and there is no reason to believe I will any more "see" that in eternity than I now "see" it. James McKnight (Apostolical Epistles) takes the future view of Justification — for he considered this a "one time" occurrence. But this basic assumption he did not prove. Abraham "believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" — but this is recorded three times in his life, years apart, and upon the manifestation of his faith in widely different ways (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:18-22; Gen. 22:, Jas. 2:21-23). McKnight had to give "justification" a special "theological" meaning, unwarranted by scriptures, to carry his point; and I believe the same is true of those who treat "righteousness" and "forgiveness" in this way.

"Eternal Life" is built of words used with reference to God's "eternal" nature — to man's eternal home, the eternal nature of God's Spirit, etc. (Rom. 6:23; 16:26; 2 Cor. 5:1; Heb. 9:14) Interminable duration is the prominent idea; and in this sense it follows final judgment. But there seems to be a qualitative sense also, by which one who abides in Christ is said to "have" eternal life.

Saving faith, the condition upon which we are promised salvation, is our motivation for action. The walls of Jericho were no less thrown down "by faith" after it happened, than before it happened (Heb. 11:30). Joshua believed in God, not in the walls. Our faith is in Christ, hence in His word; and when that word says some, upon "washing" were "sanctified" and were "justified" (1 Cor. 6:11) we can accept that as having taken place.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XIX No.XII Pg.8

February 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

A class in Interpretation was told that the writer's character is often revealed by his product (do be charitable, dear Reader); and each student was given a "sample" to be used in writer analysis. One student wrote the following about an author:

"He was middle to upper middle family. Not upper class for their (sic) were definite lackage of fine textured language skills missing. He also seems to have went to a public school."

Note the critic's "fine textured language skills." He really done good!! I wonder how many of us realize we are revealing our own character in the process of criticizing our neighbor. Sometimes we take note of another's fault because we have the same problem — a "stuck-up" person "just can't stand" another who is equally (or more) "stuck-up." Nor is this necessarily a sign of hypocrisy. We may be blind to our own sin, yet see that sin in others. Nathan had to use a parable, letting David judge a like case in another, before David could be made to see himself. (2 Sam. 12).

This article is no indictment of "judging others." We all are forced to render judgments every day: choosing our friends, maintaining fellowships that are God-pleasing, fighting false doctrines, yes — and particularly in assisting those overtaken in a trespass (Gal. 6:1). It is not wrong to "judge righteous judgment" (Jn. 7:24), by an objective examination of fruits (Matt. 7:15-20). We know truth and/or error by comparison with that which inspiration has revealed (l Jn. 4:6). But we should remember that our use of this standard is contingent on our knowledge and judgment of both the standard and the situation.

We may reveal our own ignorance, or our arrogance, or our lack of concern for others, by the way we evaluate people and situations. Brethren in error may be driven deeper into darkness, and an unnecessary confrontation developed, by unethical and egotistical criticism. More, when these characteristics of the critic become apparent to the public, the brotherhood turns away in disgust and is deprived of the warning and truth that may be sorely needed. Judge with care, knowing the best of critics paints a self-portrait in the process.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.1

March 1983

Attitudes Also Teach

Robert F. Turner

"Be not many of you teachers, my brethren, knowing that we shall receive heavier judgment" (Jas. 3:1).

Surely we know James is not discouraging teaching, but seeks to impress us with the serious responsibilities of teaching. A careless remark, misuse of scripture or the like, uttered in private conversation, may have a devastating result when repeated, multiplied, and applied in a way you may never have dreamed. How much more when the teaching is done from the pulpit, or written, to be embalmed for generations unborn.

Yes, we can take ourselves too seriously — imagine we have influence totally unreal; but better this than irresponsible scattering of tares.

Yet, teaching must be done; and as none of us are infallible but are subject to err in teaching, a second safeguard must be employed. We must develop an attitude toward our work that promotes humility rather than "editorial arrogance"; that permits speaking or writing with conviction without feeling that all who differ with us are Satanic ogres, bent on corrupting the brotherhood. If our motives are right we can teach truth and correct error without leaving the impression we think we are savior of the church.

If we truly love souls, and our purposes to lead people out of darkness into light, all the more reason to cultivate their confidence and impress them with our fairness and good will. We defeat these noble purposes when we pounce upon every conceived missed word or wrong judgment as grist for our mill. A teacher assists hearers and readers to know and understand more perfectly, and encourages them to live a better life. Reproof and rebukes are made with a heavy heart, not as haughty ego trips.

So, there are two requirements of the godly teacher. The content of his teaching must be pure a right; but he must also do his job in the right way, with the right spirit. Our text seems pointed more toward the latter. Bitter envy and strife must give way to wisdom from above — that is pure, peaceable, gentle, etc. (Jas. 3:17-f).

[RETIREDFAN1]

XX No.I Pg.2

March 1983

The Right Church

Robert F. Turner

A brother told me his friend asked if the church of which he was a member was the true church. The brother is an honest, conscientious man, and he said he couldn't tell his friend the church of which he was a member was perfect. He knew, and the friend knew, they had problems and imperfections. So he told the friend it was the nearest thing to "right" of which he knew. Is this the best approach?

The "nearest thing to right" says I know what is "right," but either I can not find — perhaps believe there does not exist — one that measures up; or, I am willing to settle for some less than what I know should be. Perhaps some of our readers believe he should have said he was a member of the church of Christ and that is the "true church." He could have said it; and launched into the time of its establishment, its name, its government and the other characteristics usually used for identification. But his Querist referred to the local church of that community, and was smart enough to know that proving the features of the 1st. century church is not proving this local church qualifies.

I suggested he discuss the church of the N.T. records from two angles: the IDEAL, or that perfect church one might envision by studying what is approved and disapproved of God. Then, point out that the actual congregations of the 1st. century were not perfectly aligned with this ideal. In fact, we learn what Christ desired by seeing their errors corrected, as well as by approved examples, etc. Then, drive this home. Anything short of a sincere, all-out endeavor to be and do what Christ wants us to be and do, is not good enough. Tell your friend you have done what you believe God's word teaches one must do to become a child of God. And you are in fellowship with other like children, who are endeavoring to work and worship as God's word directs. Ask him to examine your faith and practices in the light of God's word. If you can show him you welcome constructive criticism, will correct any errors he might find, are ever cognizant of weakness and need to improve, and are praying for forgiveness and strength to do better — brother, you have shown him the "right" church. If you can't stand such a test, perhaps you will CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!

------------------------

The Cogdell-Turner discussion on The Church, Congregational Independence, Cooperation, and Work of Church comes from press April 1. Order from Guardian of Truth Publishers, 101 W. Second St., Tompkinsville, Ky. 42167. I have no commercial interest in this.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.3

March 1983

What Bible Classes Need

Dan S. Shipley

Appreciation! That's the first and fundamental need of our Bible classes. After all, if they are not esteemed as vitally important in the local church, any other need they have will be almost academic. But, it is not enough that only a dedicated few have this sense of seriousness about Bible classes. Every elder, deacon, teacher, preacher, and parent must feel a personal obligation to cooperate in assuring the very best in Bible instruction. And that will certainly include overcoming the prevalent and hurtful apathetic attitudes that hinder such an objective.

Accordingly, Bible classes urgently need the active and involved support of the elders. As respected and influential "ensamples to the flock" (1 Pet. 5:3), these men, more than any others, determine the congregation's attitude toward these classes. That which does not warrant the interest, the planning, the encouragement, and the involvement of elders is not likely to be considered all that important by other members. Bible classes are one way in which they can "feed the church of the Lord" (Acts 20:28). As those who "take care of the church" (1 Tim. 3:5), these leaders should provide the very best possible teachers and facilities to promote the instruction which is in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).

In addition, Bible classes desperately need dedicated and conscientious teachers. Not only is what the teacher says important; what he does and is are equally important. Unless he lives what he teaches, he teaches in vain. Bible classes need prepared teachers — the kind who have something to offer besides "fill-in-the-blanks" and cross- word puzzles. Our classes need teachers who relate Bible truth to the level and needs of the students. And, all the better if it can be done with enthusiasm and a sense of urgency. It should go without saying that the best teachers are those who are truly concerned for the souls of their pupils. It is not without good reason that James says, "Be not many of you teachers, my brethren..." (3:1). Teaching God's word is serious business and our classes need teachers who think so.

Another thing our Bible classes need are concerned parents. Usually, the parent's attitude toward these classes will be reflected in their children. If parents leave the impression that school studies are more important than Bible studies, the effect can be eternally hurtful. One of the perpetual problems voiced by many Bible class teachers is that their students do not read their assignments or do their homework. Parents condone and even encourage such neglect in allowing it — not that most of them don't care, we just forget and become neglectful. I've often wondered if it wouldn't be helpful if teachers would send parents progress or report cards something like those used in public schools. Anyway, none can deny that parental influence is a major factor in determining the quality of our Bible classes.

Instruction in Bible truth was never needed more. May we remember the needs of classes where such instruction is done.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.4

March 1983

What Is Fellowship?

Robert F. Turner

The early disciples "continued steadfastly in... fellowship" (Acts 2: 42). And, this "constant attention" to fellowship is a practice of our first century brethren that we would do well to imitate. But what is involved in "fellowship," especially fellowship with a local church?

Fellowship is not "placing membership" or having one's name "on the roll." Nor should it be equated with one's bodily presence in an assembly. In spite of these things, there are many brethren who are not in fellowship with the congregation they claim to be a part of.

The prefix "fellow" means being a partner, having or sharing in common with others (Philem.17). Christians are those who share a common faith (Tit. 1:4), salvation (Jude 3), calling (Heb. 3:1), nature (2 Pet. 1:4), and relationship (Eph. 3:6).

But simply having things in common with others does not make one "in fellowship" with them. The suffix "ship" suggests a "state, condition, quality" that must be attained and maintained by activity. Extending the "right hand of fellowship" (Gal. 2:9) and jointly participating with others in activities that we all have a common interest in brings us into true fellowship. There must likewise be a "fellowship of the spirit" (Phil.2:1) or disposition. We must all "will" the same things.

A local church is such a fellowship of saints: those with common interests, having a united spirit, and jointly working together in providing for various activities (Phil. 1:1, 5; 4:10-18). In the work of the church do I aid my "fellows in their scriptural endeavors to the extent of my ability? Do I "share" my "resources" (time, talents, money, etc.) with them as they work to accomplish their goals?

In the assemblies of the church do I seek to learn from the teaching (Gal. 6:6)? As prayer is offered do I become of "one spirit" with the one expressing thoughts to God (1 Cor. 14:16)? Do I speak to my brethren in song and make melody in my heart to God (Eph. 5:19)? And when the death of Christ is remembered, do I partake in a "worthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27)?

Isn't it strange that brethren can believe they are still in fellowship with a local church even though they seldom, if ever, attend the assemblies, refuse to participate in the assemblies they do attend, or fail to "lend a hand" in the various programs of work being carried on?

Brethren, whenever we withdraw our "spirits" (and we are no longer interested in what is being done), or when our participation in the work ceases because we have deliberately withdrawn it, then we have withdrawn our fellowship. How many assemblies we attend, or our names being in the directory means nothing.

Brethren, let us be actively interested and involved in the work of the local church that we may truly continue steadfastly in fellowship.

David Smitherman

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.5

March 1983

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

The Wife As God Would Have Her

Intro.

1. "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing..." (Prov.18:22), especially when that wife knows and respects God's will for her in marriage 2. The God-given place of the wife is one of dignity and honor. She honors God and husband no better than when she remembers and appreciates this 3. Wives, as husbands, need reminding of what God would have them be ...

I. LIKE THE HUSBAND, SHE MUST LEAVE ONE FAMILY RELATIONSHIP IN FAVOR OF ESTABLISHING ANOTHER (Matt. 19:5, 6)

A. The latter must have precedence over the former 1. Marriages suffer when the wife does not leave mother & father 2. Every wife has obligations to her own family over all others

Ii. She Is In Subjection To Her Husband

A. From the beginning (Gen. 3:16) B. Subjection to be "as unto the Lord" (Eph. 5:22) 1. Role only appreciated by the wife who is a Christian 2. Suggests willful, desirable, beneficial subjection 3. Opposed to assertiveness, dominance, threatening behavior C. Subjection to be comprehensive: "In everything" (Eph. 5:24) 1. At no time, no place, and in nothing is it proper for the wife not to be in subjection to her husband (excepting principle of Ac. 5:29) D. Subjection even to unbelieving husbands (1 Pet. 3:1; 1 Cor. 7:13) E. Such subjection is "fitting in the Lord" (Col. 3:18) 1. Note: Such subjection is no more degrading than for the church to be in subjection to the Christ'.

III. SHE IS TO BE A TRUE HELP-MEET (Gen. 2:18, 20) (i.e., compatible and appropriate to her husband's needs; a helper)

A. She helps meet his physical needs 1. Including companionship and sex (1 Cor. 7:1-4)

B. She helps meet his domestic needs 1. Includes being a "worker at home" (Titus 2:5; 1 Tim. 5:14; Prov. 31:27)

C. She helps in spiritual matters 1. As an example of faithfulness (1 Pet. 3) 2. In influencing his salvation (1 Cor. 7:16) 3. Encouraging, serving with husband as "joint heir of grace of life" 4. She helps rear her children for heaven

IV. SHE TRULY LOVES HER HUSBAND (Titus 2:4)

A. Such love must be cultivated and expressed continually 1. Cannot subsist on romance and emotions (takes diligence, effort)

B. Such love is based on respect (Eph. 5:33) 1. Such respect often appears as "fear" or "reverence" (Mk. 6:20) 2. Wife respects husband in spite of faults or lack of enabling qualities

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.6

March 1983

You Owe Me!

Robert F. Turner

"I Paul...say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides" (Philemon 19). I am amazed. How bold for a preacher to say "You owe me." Yet he told the truth. I seem somehow to hear my teachers echoing the words. They have the right to demand ("enjoin" v.8) payment, but alas, how shall I pay them?

I can pay in material goods. Paul obviously expected a consideration in regard to Onesimus' material debt now on Paul's account (v.19) and he asks for lodging (v.22). Paul claimed right to "eat and drink," to "lead about a wife," and to "forbear working" (1 Cor. 9:5,6). Such rights depended upon his basic right to expect his converts to support him — he who plants eats the fruit (v.7). He sowed the spiritual; he should reap their material (v. 11). Paul did not demand payment, but they still owed him (v.18). And that is a long way from "employing" Paul! Likewise, the Philippians "from the first day" accepted their obligation and were Paul's partners in the gospel (Phil. 1:5-7). By "giving and receiving," the partnership worked and they honored their debt "sending once and again to Paul's necessity (4:15,16).

I can become the teacher's helper. Paul expected such from Philemon — "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself" (Philemon 17). This kind of payment is suggested in the debt statement — "thou owest... thine own self" (v.19). Payment on such a debt is made by giving of self — by service. It is giving time and work to the teacher. Paul marks payment to Philemon for the vicarious service of Onesimus who "in thy stead...ministered unto me" (v.13) and was "profitable" (v.11). Epaphroditus on behalf of the Philippians ministered to Paul. Paul said, "...he ministered to my wants.... to supply your lack of service toward me" (Phil. 2:25, 30).

I can use my abilities to advance my teacher's cause. "Let him that is taught in the word (the debtor) communicate (join as a partner) unto him that teacheth in all good things (the spiritual cause Gal. 6:6). I repay my teacher by zealously serving the same cause he serves.

I can manifest a loyal attitude to the truth taught. As when I first "received the word with all readiness of mind," I now continue to love and learn and obey truth (Acts 17:11). And "brother Great says" never comes even close to "the Lord says." A great teacher expects such payment.

I pay on my debt by "spending and being spent" in behalf of others who need the gospel — even when they do not appreciate it (2 Cor. 12:15). I may win one and thus pay my teacher.

"Owe no man anything." All debts should be paid — except to "love one another" which is never paid in full (Rom. 13:8). And I might add, neither is my debt to those who have taught me the way of salvation, have enlarged my perception of truth, have enriched my stewardship. "Thou owest me" they call. Yes, its true. How numerous the debtors; how great the debt! I will never pay out, but I must keep making the payments.

Joe Fitch, San Antonio, TX

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.7

March 1983

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

Why do we pray to God the Father, in view of the fact that all authority has been given unto the Son who now reigns? I do not question prayer to the Father — just ask WHY...? JDM

Reply:

I do not know the WHY of many Bible teachings — and discuss such matters with fear. It seems prayer is offered to GOD (deity) as a whole, and not to Father or Son exclusively.

Many have an ill conceived, mechanical concept of deity: losing sight of the ONENESS of "Theos" (God), and considering Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in such a way as to make three Gods. When man tries to bring ETERNAL SPIRIT into his time and space-bound realm, he boldly marches in where angels fear to tread. We can know deity only through faith in revelation: the incarnate One, and His Spirit-filled word. Here, by the very nature of the case, we must cope with figurative language which translates spiritual matters into matters of human experience. "Father and Son" have a figurative, not a literal use, re. deity.

God is first called "Father" of Israel — considered collectively as His son (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1-3). "First-born" signified the preeminence of Israel over other "offspring of God" (Acts 17:29). The preeminence of the Christ is so described (2 Sam. 7:14, Psm. 2:7, Acts 13:33, Heb. 2:5), and is demonstrated by His resurrection. The "only begotten, indicates uniqueness, not inferiority of son to father. In fact, Christ is called "Everlasting Father" (Isa. 9:6; 22:21- 22).

"The Word" is co-eternal with the whole of deity, being deity (Mic. 5:2, Jn. 1:1-f; Phil. 2.5-6. In Revelation the message from "God" was also from Christ. "Alpha and Omega" is applied to Christ (1:11-18); and what He said the Spirit said (2:1, 7-8, 1'7-18). The Lamb is "in the midst" of God's throne (7:15-17), with the fullness of the Spirit (5:6). It is difficult to see how one might invoke the "God" of heaven without involving the whole.

The "Father" role is dominant, and we pray to the Father remembering the example: "Our Father who art in heaven..." (Matt. 6:9). Christ told his disciples, "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you" (Jn. 16:23). These are good reasons to pray to "Our Father." But it is also true that Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" (Acts 7:59). Paul "besought the Lord thrice" and identified that "Lord" as Christ (2 Cor. 12:8-10). John wrote to those who "believe on the name of the Son of God" saying, if we ask according to his will "he heareth us," and we have the petitions which we "asked of him" (1 Jn. 5:13-15). It seems clear that prayer is offered to both Father and Son — perhaps indicating deity as a whole (GOD); and that we should not allow prayer to fragment GOD, putting one role to the exclusion of others. The O.T. alone gives 35 descriptive names or roles of God. We cannot invoke God the Judge, without praying also to God the Savior, Father, etc.

Brethren, I am ashamed that we allow such matters to become divisive "issues." They should humble us, and make us see our ignorance and sin.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.I Pg.8

March 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

The little room was a bedlam of confusion. People jammed every available space, including the little nook that had been created by knocking out a wall between the main room and a small closet. A songbook dropped on a hard, scarred, second-hand pew made a sharp sound, which echoed from the stark painted walls. It was joined by the shuffling of feet against a bare concrete floor, the kicking of pews by small children, babies crying, the dropping of bottles or toys that were supposed to "keep them quiet."

And this was worship time! The congre- gation numbered 28 adults, who had 23 children — eight years and under. During the singing and the sermon a steady stream of young mothers went in and out of one rest room, changing the younger, trying to keep from having to change the older. During the prayers and Lord's Supper they tried to hold squirming youngsters, or to smother babys cry with loving kisses. Everyone sang, whether they knew how to sing or not, and they drowned most other sounds with a great upheaval of voices, raised to God. Then someone introduced the visiting preacher with apologies for "this situation..." And the preacher began: "Some day you will have a beautiful building with lofty high ceilings. The floor will be carpeted, windows draped, the pews softly cushioned, and the singing will sound awful. You will have tile restrooms, antiseptic and sweet; a nursery with small white beds; lavatories with much hot water; and there will be no babies to take there. Your fiberglass baptistery will have ever-warm, fresh water, lovely dressing rooms, electrically controlled curtains, beautiful lighting; but few to baptize.

Now, you are a growing, working, vibrant church. You have drafted one another to work for the Lord. You sit with a neighbor's children while your preacher has Bible classes for the parents. You eat peanut butter sandwiches together and wonder what will happen if a few more get "laid off." But you are rich in love. Would you trade God's approval for money or Sunday at a Club; a place in heaven for one on the right side of the tracks? Can you not GROW without losing sight of today's blessings??"

And they answered with one voice: "preach on preacher, we are blessed!!"

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.1

April 1983

The Fight For Truth

Robert F. Turner

When two brothers, presumed to be saints, have differences in understanding concerning some scriptural matter, their sainthood prescribes their conduct. They love each other, have nothing but good will toward one another — which means each wishes the other to have truth and profit by it. "Self" has been pushed into the background, if not eliminated (Phil. 1:27--2:4). They stand fast in one (or, the same) spirit (attitude), with one (the same) mind (desire) as they strive together (mutually helpful) for the faith of the gospel.

Honest now — is that the impression you get when two brethren meet on platform or printed page to discuss religious differences? How come a large percentage of readers or hearers get the impression each is out to smear the other, tack on an uncomplimentary "label," and "finish" him? We frequently hear some paper is just promoting self with such "issues."

We know that such charges can be more of the very tactics they criticize; can be efforts to stop any exposure of error; and we do not suggest that brethren should allow false charges to stop legitimate discussion. On the other hand, the presentation of gospel truth does not justify unethical and ungodly treatment of our opponents. When great segments of our audience — folk who agree with our conclusions — turn away in disgust from our tactics, we should at least realize we are not "coming across" as saints, primarily interested in truth.

Aye, here is the true test! Are we teaching truth, or are we using carnal pressures to build up a "party," and keep the members in line? Do our pupils know which flag to follow, but do not know WHY? Do our tactics promote a fanaticism that cries "Communist," "Calvinist," or "Liberal" at everyone who differs with us; or are we really interested in facts, and in constructive presentation of truth in love that "suffereth long and is kind" (1 Cor. 13:4-f). The "party and prejudice" route is the easy one — if you want that kind of members; but truth properly taught will free the recipient from sin, and make true brothers. WE MUST LEARN TO STAND UP FOR TRUTH WITHOUT KNEELING TO THE DEVIL!!

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.2

April 1983

Preachers Who Eld!

Robert F. Turner

In recent years many churches have appointed their preacher to serve as one of their overseers (bishops, elders, shepherds). We assume these men are scripturally qualified (the first consideration) and know Paul wrote of elders who "labor in the word and doctrine" (1 Tim. 5:17), so we are not questioning the right of this arrangement. Preachers seem to be staying longer at one church, owning their homes, and becoming more a part of the community, and all of this contributes to the practice. But brethren have a way of using one case — where long association, permanently located, and well qualified make for a good example — to justify another case where practically a newcomer, untried, and having little experience with that church or community, is accepted because he is "the preacher." That situation is ripe for problems that could tear the church apart.

If the man continues to be supported by the church we could have a "conflict of interests" when elders meet to discuss a "raise" or perhaps a change of preachers. Their active "public image" tends to push them up on a pedestal anyhow, and in conditions not uncommon these days the new preacher may become the "leading elder." If he takes business meeting differences to the pulpit — look out! Often the preacher is considered because in smaller churches there are fewer qualified men from whom we may choose. In fact, with our highly mobile society, the preacher may be one of the more constant members. He may be appointed because the alternative is one — or no elders at all. I can relate to such situations, and feel deep sympathy and concern for these brethren. Where the man appointed is a long-time resident, well qualified, and approved by the congregation without "preacher pressure," this has much to commend it.

But you detect a note of caution, an "if" or "but" or "however" in the way I write?? You are right! I know it can be scriptural, I know it can be expedient, I know it has worked in many places. I also know it can be scriptural without being expedient or profitable 1 or. 6:12), and it bothers me to see churches rushing into this arrangement on little more justification than "that's the way they did it over in Podunk."

One person writes, "Can a man hold the office of Evangelist and Elder at the same time?" I believe neither are "offices" in the official or hierarchal sense — it is the office of one to preach and the other to oversee in the sense of duty, work, or function.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.3

April 1983

Mote Hunting

Dan S. Shipley

In His condemnation of hypocritical judging, Jesus speaks of one who beholds the mote in another's eye, but fails to consider the beam in his own eye (Matt. 7:3). What unusual moral vision! When focused outwardly it is able to discern the tiniest speck; yet, when looking inwardly, it cannot discern what should be most obvious. Our Lord is, of course, pointing up the need for self-discipline ("cast out first the beam out of thine own eye," v.5) — and what a tremendously important lesson it is! But what He touches on in only an incidental way in this context may be worthy of further consideration too; namely, mote beholding.

Obviously, the act of mote beholding, in itself, is not wrong for it is simply the act of perceiving or seeing the "mote," whatever it might be. When this occurs, providing we have de-beamed ourselves, we can help ("see clearly") to cast out the mote from our brother's eye. If, however, we are not careful, the mote beholding easily deteriorates into mote hunting; i.e., looking for fault in others, especially with a view to hurting or discrediting in some way. The Christian who deliberately looks for something to criticize in another has, in that disposition alone, a personal "beam" in his own eye that needs beholding and casting out. Lamentably, mote hunting is more popular than beam hunting. No doubt, if there were more of the latter there would be less of the former. But, such is not the case and, in fact, it often appears that some have declared open-season for mote hunting.

Take, for instance, many of the written debates, exchanges, reviews, reviews of reviews, exposes, and the like, of recent years. It is not unusual to see the obvious intent and meaning of an action or argument ignored in a painstaking and tedious effort to search out some trifling innuendo to be used against the opposition. If one is suspicioned to have certain "leanings," his every statement is carefully scrutinized — not for objective evaluation, but for "evidence" with which to blast him! If nothing of an incriminating nature is obvious, the mote hunter can always read between the lines and find something with which to jump to an unwarranted conclusion. The mote hunter's inferences have a way of being translated into his opponents "position." Whether real or imagined, every mote is likely to be magnified to "beam" proportions. But, such mote hunting and exploiting is by no means limited to writers and debaters.

In fact, most of us have likely indulged in the practice to some extent. Ill-will, prejudice, and envy (things to which we are all susceptible) can easily send us on a mote hunt if we are not careful. If one has wronged us, we are inclined to search out and exploit the "motes" of his conduct and speech. Even the slightest conflict or controversy can motivate mote hunting. And when brethren start looking for and advertising the bad in each other, look out! You will see just what we are seeing in many places today: hate, enmity, strife, and division such as cripple the cause of Christ.

The answer? “Love suffereth long, is kind, envieth not, thinketh no evil, beareth all things.”

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.4

April 1983

No "Rights"

Robert F. Turner

Have you ever seen anything like it? It seems that everyone nowadays has certain "rights." This generally means either the "right" to believe whatever you please or to practice anything you please wherever or whenever it pleases you, regardless of how offensive, obnoxious, and conscientiously objectionable it may be to others, or even if the exercise of those "rights" infringes upon or deprives others of theirs.

While most of the "rights" under discussion are one's Constitutional "rights," some have turned to the Bible as well to establish various "rights" and, in the process, have gotten some things confused.

There is a difference between Constitutional rights guaranteed by government, and the moral and spiritual rights given by God. Also, the forms of "government" under which we have our rights are quite different. Our earthly citizenship is in a democracy and we may amend the Constitution, lobby our leaders, and demonstrate in order to bring about a change in the rights we have.

But God's kingdom is not of this world (Jo. 18:36; Phil. 3:20). His rule is not democratic. His is not a republic but an autocracy ("absolute power or authority of one person over others"), and one's rights are not acquired as they are in a democracy. We haven't the prerogative of drafting a "We the people..." resolution. God tells us what our rights are and are not.

At least two groups in our country haven't learned this. Some, in the women's lib and homosexual movements, wanting to maintain a semblance of "Christianity" and yet have "rights" God hasn't given, think God heads a republic and His will is a constitution to be amended at their whim.

But there are some "rights" that homosexuals simply do not have. They have no right to practice unrighteousness (1 Jo. 5:17). That is, they have no right to call "normal" what God has called perverted (Isa. 5:20; Lev. 20:13). They have no right to expect forgiveness from God (1 Jo. 1:9), eternal reward (Rev. 21:8), or to be accepted as God's children by God fearing people (Eph. 5:11) as long as they persist in their sin.

And, women are also denied a few "rights." They have no right to engage in lawlessness (1 Jo. 3:4). They have no right to assume the same positions of leadership, authority, and function that God has given men in the home (Eph. 5:22-23) or the local church (1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Cor. 14:34). They have no right to expect acceptance of such lawless acts (2 Jo. 9). And, they have no right to expect forgiveness (1 Jo. 1:9) or reward (Matt. 7:23) as long as they insist upon exercising rights" that God hasn't given them.

"Give me liberty or give me death" takes on new meaning in the spiritual realm if by "liberty" we mean "rights" to practice what God forbids. God's sovereignty precludes such impudence. King Saul found out the hard way (1 Sam. 13:8-14; 15:1-ff.) that there are certain areas in which we simply have no rights. David Smitherman

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.5

April 1983

Use Your Bible

Dan S. Shipley

What Parents Owe Children

Intro.

1.It is not likely that any mortal will have more influence on the spiritual welfare of children than the parent (think about that parents!) 2.God wants parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 5:4). Children are blessed when parents will do so. a. Leaving the Lord out of child-rearing is to sin against God and child 3.Accordingly, parents have obligations to children beyond providing food, clothing, and shelter...

I. Parents Owe Their Children The Right Example

A. Parents, as all Christians, are living letters (2 Cor. 3:2,3) 1."Known and read of all men," but especially by our children 2.There is not an adult who doesn't remember the example of his parents; neither a parent who won't be so remembered by his own children

B.Examples teach values 1.Parents are a living demonstration of what they consider important 2.Children are powerfully impressed in SEEING parents worship God, read the Bible, and follow Christ daily; in HEARING them pray, sing praises, discuss Bible subjects, encourage and teach faithfulness 3.God's compliment for Abraham: "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him..." (Gen. 18:19)

Ii. Parents Owe Their Children A Knowledge Of God's Word

A.Emphasized under Old Covenant 1.Deut. 6:7,8; 31:9-13, etc.

B.Compare with emphasis and time given to secular education (priorities?)

C.Primary responsibility of educating children in Scripture belongs to the parent, not the church! 1.Bible classes at church building are, at best, only supplemental yet do deserve support and help of parents (illustrate

Iii. Parents Owe Their Children Discipline (Respect For Authority)

A.Eli's example and God's judgment ("He restrained them not," 1 Sam. 3:13)

B.Discipline is a mark of love (Prov. 13:24)

C.Discipline removes foolishness and produces wisdom (Prov. 22:15; 29:15)

D."The greatest social disaster of this century is the belief that abundant love makes discipline unnecessary."

E.Show that all punishment is not necessarily discipline 1.Especially that done in anger or with spirit of vindictiveness 2.Excessive and unwarranted punishment may provoke to wrath & discourage

IV. PARENTS OWE THEIR CHILDREN LOVE, AFFECTION, ATTENTION, AND TIME

(re. "Orphans of the Living" by Edgar A.Guest)

A.May we fulfill our God-given obligations to our children, to bring them up in the way they should go... (Prov. 22:6)

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.6

April 1983

Alone!

Robert F. Turner

Alone! Alone! What a stark, bleak, terror-filled word. Solitary confinement is one of man's most dreaded and destructive punishments. Who has not felt the agony of being excluded and left alone? Bold and strong Elijah wilted under its lash and cried out, "It is enough; now, 0 Lord, take away my life; ... I have been very jealous for the Lord God of Hosts ... and I, even I only, am left" (1 King. 19:4,10) No wonder God examined his creation and said, "It is not good that man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). Nor is it surprising that Jesus gave special attention to his disciples when it was time to leave them. He assured them that they would not be left alone — orphans (Jno. 14:18). "I will pray the Father and he will give you another comforter" — one called to the side — "that he may abide with you forever" (Jno. 14:16).

God provided for man so that he would not have to be alone. First, he put man in the family. To Adam he gave "a help meet for him." — or a helper suitable to his needs. Family was endowed with the strongest and closest human ties — a refuge against being alone. Likewise, God gave the nation to meet man's social needs for "no man lives to himself." Finally the local church was designed to put together men of like faith and hope in God. God knew that in spiritual matters "it is not good that man should be alone." Few — if any — can make it alone. We are members "in particular" but solidly joined to the other members. None stands alone.

By design, the family, nation, and the local church should support and protect a man as he strives to serve God. Often that is not the case. The Lord prepared his disciples for being outcasts from family and society. And churches run by men like Diotrephes "cast out" righteous men. Even so, he is not alone. "At my first answer no man stood with me... notwithstanding the Lord stood with me:" (2 Tim. 4:16). We always have an advocate — a friend by our side.

When "all men forsake" us, we must not allow that to distort our values and perspective. Elijah did. Things were not as black as he painted them. "I only am left." There were seven thousand who had not bowed to Baal. His perspective was warned. "Take my life" shows his values are out of focus. Many decide to go to hell with a crowd rather than stand alone.

Yet there are places we must go alone. No comrade can stand at our side. In the garden, Jesus prayed alone; the disciples were left behind. They could not share his pain or his prayer. He was alone in his sorrow. We also must meet sorrow alone. Our friends encourage; they want to help. They weep with us, but it is ours alone in the last analysis. We say, "There is nothing you can do." Again, duty stands us alone. Brethren exhort but I alone can do my job — "For every man shall bear his own burden" (Gal. 6:5). And at last consider the final judgement where I stand alone even in so great a crowd. Churches and crowds are not judged here, but "every man ... receiving the things done in his body ... good or bad" (2 Cor. 5:10).

Joe Fitch, San Antonio, Tex.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.7

April 1983

?You Know What?

Robert F. Turner

Bro. Turner:

We are agreed that the church must help needy saints, and we want to do this. Our problem is determining genuine need — "scriptural" recipients.

Reply:

"Need" or the condition of "want" must be determined from a "norm" of sufficiency — enough. But enough for what? Paul answers this question by citing Ex. 16:18 (2 Cor. 8:14-15) where "according to his eating" is a norm. When clothing, shelter, etc., are all considered, it appears enough to meet the necessities of life is the rule by which "want" or "abundance" is measured. This may be subject to some variation of judgment, but we will not go far wrong by this standard. It is not the business of the church to sustain "the standard of living to which they have become accustomed," although assistance too long delayed may create further problems of need.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, "that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your hands, as we commanded you; that ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing" (1 Thes. 4:11-12). In 2 Thes. this is expanded: "— that if any would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread" (3:11-12).

It seems clear that deadbeats must be fed — straight teaching from God! There will be no free ride for those who will not work — who will not pay their bills or honestly face obligations to the extent of their ability. This includes those who make bills they know they cannot pay — who live above their means. The church should not subsidize some member's pride and worship of Mammon.

I am fully aware of difficult decisions — like the wife and children of a wastrel — emergency needs when proper investigation is difficult if not impossible — what appears to be a genuine "prodigal come home" but does not work out that way. Better to keep a tender heart, even though con artists count heavily on our doing so. We can guard against long-term abuse of charity by closer observation of recipients, including drop-in visits.

And since many "needy" cases get that way because they really do not know HOW to live within means, and use what they do have to greatest advantage; we can help those who really want to do better by practical suggestions regarding personal habits, show them our own use of simple foods and clothing, help them with budget plans for getting out of debt. I know, I know many do not want that kind of help! But if that is the real need, make it clear there will be no other kind of help without these truths. If you do not know HOW to give such help try talking with a home-economic advisor or teacher. You can't live others lives for them, against their will; but those who want to improve their conditions can be helped. These closing suggestions are for individual saints who would help a neighbor.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Vol.XX No.II Pg.8

April 1983

Stuff About Things

Robert F. Turner

Is there some "secret" formula for being a successful preacher? It is no "secret" but I can tell you one element without which your work will be shallow, hypocritical, and eventually a failure. Your first concern must be the salvation of souls!

With this, I have known poorly educated men to succeed where college graduates failed. With this, horrible grammar and inapt illustrations have brought people to Christ, who had not been moved by oratory and beautifully designed transparencies. When genuine love for souls is apparent sinners will accept strong preaching that, in absence of that concern, turns them away in disgust or brings them to their feet with cries of defiance.

We put no premium on ignorance, butchered English, crude illustrations or inadequate preparation. In fact, we believe one who hungers for souls will do all possible to equip himself for the job; and we believe a soul-hungry person who has a good education, speaks clearly and accurately, and has trained himself in the art of teaching others, will do a better job than the ill-equipped. We may add, the soul-hungry man, burning in his desire to reach the lost with God's offer of salvation, is usually aware of his inadequacies and seeks ways of improving his work. He welcomes constructive criticism, for his pride is smothered by his selfless interest in others. Help him save souls and you have given him the best gift.

Many well trained Bible students and polished speakers will never be successful "preachers" — though they occupy popular pulpits, attract great crowds, and draw large financial support. Some may have only a superficial knowledge of what they are supposed to be doing — "hunger for souls" may be words they repeat in sermons, but do not describe their motivation.

If you are one of us preachers who sometimes feel the fire is waning, or you have "lost your touch," or "can't decide what to preach" — think of the prospective audience personally and particularly. Think of it specific spiritual needs — not how you can whip them but help them (Gal. 6:1). Go to God's word for the specific remedy and plan the lesson carefully, prayerfully. And then, "Give 'em Heaven!!"